We talked turbo versus non turbo here but the discussion veered off to oxygen and hypoxia. When I say that I would like to have the turbo the main reason is not to be able to fly at FL250 all day long, the main reason is to get more than anaemic climb rate to reach FL140, 160 or 180, which are the levels where I would like to fly most often. The trouble is that with TB20 you climb around 200-300fpm above FL120, which is something I really hate (even two up so less than MTOW). This can quickly get to zero or negative climb rate in icing. Very often there might be a weather where there is uniform cloud cover that is not too thick with tops quite low but still quite difficult to climb through with NA engine if icing layer is present. With the turbo you can positively climb at MTOW (so that you easily recognise whether you are climbing or descending) to preferred levels between FL140-180. Also, the speed is much more reasonable with normal manifold pressure numbers at altitude. I hate looking at 17" MP.
Okay back on topic 
Turbo is not only good for climbing/cruise but it also has advantages on take off (of course). Think of a grass runway with an upslope in summer…
Peter wrote:
It would be interesting to hear from turbo owners about their long term maintenance experiences, over some years of ownership.
I own it for > 6 years now and I had an overboost once with AOG for 3 months back in the beginning (which really hurt) when I wasn’t yet familiar with the technology. And I hat to cancel one flight due to a stuck wastegate. Other than that I cannot see a difference to other Europa pilots with NA egines. However I’m talking of Rotax. One thing remains the same to other engines – a new Turbo engine (or overhaul) is considerably more expensive.
europaxs wrote:
Does anyone at least know any case of a fatality due to that?
Not a fatality but close call, and it happened in a glider. When wave flying somewhere around 8500 meters the pipe which connects oxygen installation to pilot’s mask got somehow disconnected. He lost consciousness within seconds of noticing that the pipe is loose. Last thing he did was to fully open air breaks. He somehow regained consciousness at about 600 meters and was able to land in a nearby field. That’s his story.
He was found unconscious in the glider and was taken to hospital where he remained unconscious for 2 days.
How long was he “flying” from 8500 to 600 meters remains unknown. How he was able to recover for the few critical minutes, find a suitable field and execute a safe landing? Some people say it was an act of God. The follow-up investigation resulted in an AD for mechanical driven oxygen installations.
I’ve been flying a turbo aircraft since 2011. The engine and the turbo were overhauled in 1995 and now have ca 1200h. I have not had any AOG related to the turbo charger. I have not had to replace any parts connected to the turbo charging system. However, I regularly have to repair something on the exhaust system because the back pressure and complexity of the system with a cross pipe. If you have access to somebody with good welding skills, that is easy and inexpensive. I estimate the extra effort for the annual to be 2h and possibly an average 300 € per year.
The value of the turbo is huge compared to the extra cost. I don’t think anybody with a turbo would want to give it up. Ask @chrisparker or @mdoerr how the turbo retrofit transformed their aircraft.
The trouble is that with TB20 you climb around 200-300fpm above FL120
Something not right there. A TB20 does 1000fpm at sea level, 500fpm at 10000ft and 0 fpm at 20000ft. I see 200fpm at FL180 or so. This needs best power i.e. max rpm and 150F ROP (usually about 1300F EGT, at altitude).
In reality I choose to climb a lot slower; peak EGT if possible because then the climb doesn’t cost significant fuel and it keeps the CHTs down.
IFR is easier than VFR, in many cases, but to get above the clouds in summer, and in and out of icing in winter, you need to be trained and you need the right aircraft.
I guess somewhere between ‘common GA IFR’ and ‘serious IFR’ the tradeoffs start being made and that’s where the risks are actually getting bigger while the benefits don’t, really. I may be wrong, and inexperienced, but from what I have seen the last year, the typical single engine piston GA aircraft, despite being certified and equipped for IFR, does show its limits pretty soon. And I may be wrong, but how many IR rated GA pilots are really capable to keep the thing in the air when the autopilot needs to be switched off ?
I may be totally off track here, but I am pretty close to final exam in IR, and I had a pretty large pause in practical IMC flying. If you don’t train that regularly, you loose it. At least, I will certainly loose it. And how do you train it ? Simulator ? Training fights every 3 months ? Are you really trying it out alone up there ?
And then, essentially, many of you are talking about going into high FL in summer, with oxygen cannulas in your nose, with planes that, although turbonormalized, are still single piston engine planes with pretty low climb rates. And with these you go through what, 12000 ft of cumulus in summer to get ‘on top’ and then you descend again, through the soup ? You fly into known icing conditions and out of it, just with a TKS system ? Which lasts, what, 45 minutes if push comes to shove ? And all that with just one piston shaker in front of you ? And you still have the oxygen risk and the piston risk and the icing risk and the manual IMC flying risk and each single one of them can kill you.
Compared to getting a well maintained, pressurized, twin engine aircraft which at least could help you to prolong your flight to a landing field if something goes wrong ?
Peter wrote:
I see 200fpm at FL180 or so.
But remember, that you are alone on your 7h+-flights 
you are alone on your 7h+-flights
If you followed our meet-up writeups you would know that isn’t the case I have managed to torture a few others
Which lasts, what, 45 minutes if push comes to shove ?
More like 2x that. System dependent though.
in practical IMC flying. If you don’t train that regularly, you loose it.
The whole point of IFR and especially altitude capability is to fly in VMC, not IMC. IMC flying, to the extent that it is unavoidable and no more, is done on the autopilot, except on the initial IR checkride
EuroFlyer wrote:
Compared to getting a well maintained, pressurized, twin engine aircraft which at least could help you to prolong your flight to a landing field if something goes wrong ?
Twin engine aircraft also require training and are not risk free.
To your other point, rarely are any aircraft climbing through 12000ft of solid convective IMC to get on top particularly in Europe.
